THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 28, 2023
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters; and, in camera, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin the main meeting, I need agreement on the following motion:
That two photographers from the Senate Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate be allowed to take pictures during the meeting, with the least possible disruption. The pictures will be used for various projects and to update outdated material.
Are there any objections, colleagues? Seeing none, I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Good morning. I am Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would now like to go around the table and ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Senator Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Loffreda: Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning. Senator Claude Carignan from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’d also like to welcome everyone following our proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item of business is approving the minutes of proceedings from June 15, 2023, which are in your package.
Are there any questions or amendments to the minutes?
Can someone move the following motion?
That the minutes of proceedings from Thursday, June 15, 2023, be adopted.
Senator Boyer moves the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
The next item on our agenda is the report from the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability. Senator Colin Deacon has joined us this morning for this item. He is accompanied by Alison Korn, who has provided management and coordination support on the file; and Hugo Lafrance, Hugo Lafrance, Associate, Sustainability from Lemay.
Senator Deacon, you may begin your presentation, which will be followed by comments and questions. The floor is yours.
Hon. Colin Deacon: Thank you very much. I’m pleased to be here this morning.
On behalf of the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability, I am here to provide an update on the Senate of Canada Net Zero 2030 Project.
We are pleased to advise you that the first phase of the project is now complete. External consultants that we contracted earlier this year, with CIBA’s approval, have now completed the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report for the Senate. That report was provided to you for your information. As you can see, the emissions report is quite detailed. It measures the Senate’s carbon footprint as it currently stands. The calculations have taken into account the various categories of emissions generated by buildings, travel and operations.
Our lead consultant, Mr. Hugo Lafrance, representing Lemay and Groupe AGÉCO, is with us today by Zoom, being based in Montreal. He is available to answer any technical questions about the report.
To summarize the report very briefly, the Senate’s total emissions are estimated to be 3,577 tonnes of CO2 equivalents. The analysis discovered that heating the various buildings that the Senate occupies accounts for about 56% of the total, travel and commuting about 35% and the remaining 8% or 9% comes from the operations of the Senate.
Finally, I would remind senators that this project is only a few months old. The first phase of the project was to complete the emissions report. With that now accomplished, we have our baseline. Now we are moving on to the next phase, which is to develop the net-zero targets and proposed implementation plan.
You will also recall that the approach we’re taking for this project was outlined in our very first report, which was presented to CIBA on October 6, 2022. The information in that earlier report is consistent with the new report before you today.
To summarize the work being done on this project means that, at the end of the contract, we will have a road map with options to be considered by this committee while we work toward reducing our emissions and achieving our commitment. We will also recommend a reporting and operations structure for tracking and sustaining progress toward 2030.
Senators, you will be kept updated at every step along the way. As always, it will be senators, through CIBA, who will be the ones to make all the decisions about how we proceed and how the Senate works to achieve net zero by 2030.
Mr. Lafrance and I would be happy to answer any questions, along with Alison Korn. Thank you, colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: It’s an excellent report, and it gives a very detailed picture of the situation. Does the contract that was concluded include the second phase, which is the action plan? Was the contract put out to tender?
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Yes. We are working our way through that entire contract right now. We have just completed phase one. Phases two and three are included in the original contract price and work plan.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: What are you planning as a timeline for the second part, that is, the action plan that includes the objectives, which are set out in your first report?
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: It’s under way right now. Alison, what would you suggest is our expected completion date?
Alison Korn, Coordinator, Office of the Chief Corporate Services Officer and Clerk of CIBA, Senate of Canada: It would be a maximum of four months. We’ll be coming back in the new year with further updates. The entire project is planned to take about a year.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Can you remind me of the total amount of the contract?
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: The total amount is $84,060. That’s publicly available.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Moodie: I don’t have a question but I have praise. This is an excellent project. Thank you for your hard work.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much, Senator Moodie. I have to say we were thrilled as a working group when we received the report from Lemay Groupe AGÉCO, we thought it was very readable and understandable for those of us who are not experts. It gives us confidence about how things will proceed in the project. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for your presentation, and thanks to Mr. Lafrance and Ms. Korn. It is indeed a very good report. Thank you for the excellent work that has been done.
Can I have a mover for the following motion:
That CIBA authorize the public release of the September 2023 report by the Advisory Working Group on Environment and Sustainability for the Senate of Canada Net Zero 2030 Project entitled: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report; and permit the report to be posted on the Senate of Canada website.
Senator Carignan moves the motion. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Carried.
[Translation]
The next item is the annual report of the Joint Interparliamentary Council.
I invite Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, and Marie-Eve Belzile, Principal Clerk, Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, to join us.
Good morning, Jeremy and Marie-Eve.
Jeremy, I believe that you will make a presentation on the report, and it will be followed by questions.
Go ahead, Jeremy.
Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, as Clerk of the Joint Interparliamentary Council, or JIC, I am pleased to present the annual report of parliamentary associations on their activities and expenditures for the 2022-23 fiscal year.
[English]
I’d like to give you a general overview of the work of parliamentary associations during this period as described in the report, and then I can answer any questions you may have.
In March 2022, the JIC lifted the moratorium on hosting foreign delegations and travelling abroad, allowing parliamentarians to attend in-person events for the first time since the pandemic began. In 2020-21 and 2021-22, associations’ activities were virtual, and therefore very little was spent on activities. The 2019-20 fiscal year was an election year, so the most appropriate comparison between last year might be the 2018-19 fiscal year, which is the most recent year without a pandemic or an election.
In 2022-23, parliamentary associations undertook 61 travel activities in 31 different countries, and the Canadian Parliament welcomed 26 delegations from abroad.
[Translation]
Compared to the 2018-19 fiscal year, we see a reduction of about 25% in the number of travel activities. In addition, the number of participants in these activities is approximately 15% lower compared to 2018-19, although the level of spending is about equal. We can thus see the impact of inflation in the travel sector on associations’ level of activity.
The total budget of parliamentary associations for 2022-23 was just $4.3 million, the same amount as the previous five fiscal years.
[English]
Over $1.57 million was spent on membership fees for multilateral associations last year. We can see an upward trend in the contribution expenditures, since those of the last year represent an increase of almost $100,000 compared to the previous fiscal year and an increase of approximately $150,000 compared to 2018-19. This variation can be explained by progressive increases in the membership fees allocated to Canada, and since invoices are received in foreign currencies, these expenses also vary depending on currency fluctuations.
Total expenditures related to parliamentary association activities in 2022-23 represent a budget utilization rate of 88%, leaving a balance of just over $500,000 at the end of the year. However, it is important to note that part of the envelope — $177,916 — had been set aside for the planning of international conferences that Canada is hosting, one that occurred in July 2023 and the second that we are expecting to host in July 2024.
The balance of this surplus is largely due to the fact that some delegates have to cancel their participation in activities at the last minute or do not obtain permission to travel.
[Translation]
This year, parliamentary associations did not hold annual general meetings, as decided by the JIC, due to difficulties in accessing the resources needed for meetings — a problem I think you know quite well.
We have seen a significant reduction in the number of virtual and hybrid meetings last year due to the end of the moratorium, of course. However, virtual activities have continued to be an important part of the work of associations in addition to travel and hosting delegations in Canada, despite resource constraints that limit virtual or hybrid meetings that can be held simultaneously in the parliamentary precinct.
That is a brief summary of the activities of associations, but there is much more detail in the report. I want to remind you that following the presentation of the report today, it is tabled in the Senate as a report of this committee.
If you have any questions about the annual report or the associations, I would be happy to answer them.
The Chair: Thank you, Jeremy.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Welcome, Jeremy, and thank you for that report summary. The report is high level, and I am interested in some specific information, if you will. I’m interested new outcomes and new relationships. Can you give us an idea if there has there been any outreach to diverse communities, either through representatives in Washington, D.C., or outside it? I’m looking at intentional efforts to connect with communities such as Black communities, Indigenous communities or others who have significant political or economic influence in the U.S.
Mr. LeBlanc: In the United States, that work would be done largely through the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group, which holds bilateral visits. I’m not aware of specific activities that might be destined toward, for example, the Congressional Black Caucus; that would have been undertaken by Canada-U.S. I know Canada-Africa also undertakes a certain number of missions abroad, which, more often than not, would be with Black parliamentarians in African countries.
There may also be some activities in ParlAmericas dealing with Indigenous populations, in South America, in the Americas region. In addition to that, the IPU may have some issues surrounding human rights and the rights of minority populations. However, in terms of deliberate outreach toward specific groups, those are, at a high level, the ones that I’m aware of.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc, for your presentation. I’m going to ask about the overall structure and whether this has changed in recent years. You and I have exchanged in the past on this. We have a set number of groups, and then there are the associations and then there are the friendship associations. And there are some, it seems to me, where world geopolitics have changed, and maybe we should look at different types of engagement in parliamentary terms. The two examples that I can think of are two where I’m quite involved. One is Mexico — of course, another NAFTA partner — and that is essentially just a friendship association; and the one with Germany, which is an interparliamentary one, but again is not funded. We often find ourselves in the position where the Mexicans or the Germans want to come here and to invite us back, and there is no way for us to go or to reciprocate in any way.
Is there any consideration being given to that? Does it require more external stimulus, recognizing that we have long-established interparliamentary groups and associations and, of course, a finite budget? I welcome your thoughts.
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you, senator. The Joint Interparliamentary Council undertakes a review every five years of the structure of parliamentary associations and, as part of that review, would consider representation in different parts of the world, whether new associations should be added. The JIC had a subcommittee undertake that review, which reported in January, and the JIC is in the process of considering those recommendations.
The last three reviews that were undertaken by the JIC along those lines have all recommended against the creation of new bilateral associations. The focus has tended to be more on trying to strengthen those relationships through existing regional associations — through ParlAmericas for Mexico, for example, or through Canada-Europe for Germany — which provide opportunities for engagement with some of those countries.
You’re quite right to point out at the end of your question the challenge of finite resources. That is one of the primary concerns when looking at the possible creation of new associations. If there isn’t an increase in the overall envelope for parliamentary associations, then it would mean cutting the budgets of existing ones in order to create new ones. I know it is an issue that is of concern to the JIC and one that it continues to look at.
Senator Boehm: I would only add that the two countries I mentioned are among our leading trade and investment partners. I will leave it there.
Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Office of the Clerk of the Senate and Chief Legislative Services Officer, Senate of Canada: Perhaps I can have Marie‑Eve Belzile to speak to it, but with respect to Mexico, while we don’t have a parliamentary association with them, what was established with them is more at the Speaker level. They were actually provided almost a higher level. Annually, one year they come to Canada, and one year we go to Mexico. The Speakers invite the Speakers from the two chambers in Mexico to come here and vice versa. The Speakers bring delegations with them — senators and the MPs — because this is a joint event between the Senate and the House of Commons. I just wanted to put it on the record that for Mexico there is a specific event every year.
When we hold it in Canada, we try to do it on a non-sitting week in one of the two chambers, and then we invite all parliamentarians to attend those meetings if they can. Maybe Marie-Eve Belzile has something else to add to that.
Marie-Eve Belzile, Principal Clerk, Parliamentary Exchanges and Protocol, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, Senate of Canada: I think Gerry summarized it. The only thing I would mention is that we usually do it on a sitting week to allow for parliamentarians to participate.
Senator Boyer: Thank you very much for this report. I found it very interesting.
I want to pick up on what Senator Moodie had started to speak about. You mentioned that there were several associations that are dealing with diverse populations. I would really like to see in this report — perhaps under “Introduction” and after “Supporting Parliamentary Associations” — how that’s addressed in separate parliamentary associations. If you needed to speak to the Parliamentary Black Caucus or the Indigenous Senators Working Group, I’m sure we’d be happy to help in that area. Maybe with our next report we could see that.
Mr. LeBlanc: Thanks. We’ll make a note of that for next year.
Senator Boyer: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I would like to ask a supplementary question to Senator Boehm’s question about regional parliamentary associations. The Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association had adopted a practice, but I don’t know if this is still the case. When visits were made to certain European countries, and there was a parliamentary friendship group, an effort was made to include that group as part of the mission.
Would it be possible to adopt this practice on a permanent basis? I am thinking of the Inter-Parliamentary Union as a whole, but also ParlAmericas. Would it be possible for this practice of the regional organizations to be enshrined in the regulations?
Mr. LeBlanc: Indeed, the JIC has already encouraged associations to work more closely with existing friendship groups. You gave a very good example, that when associations carry out a mission in a particular country, they can assess what involvement they could have with the members of that friendship group.
When it comes to selecting delegates, sometimes the difficulty is a financial constraint for smaller delegations, which leaves less room.
In the specific case of Europe, many of the association’s trips take place at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where very precise rules must be followed. A certain number of delegates must be appointed annually, and only those people are allowed to participate as observers. This is a limiting factor, and if you want to combine a bilateral visit with a mission to the parliamentary assembly, it necessarily limits the number of people who can be chosen.
Yes, we encourage the associations to foster this collaboration, and the JIC has pointed this out a few times. When we welcome delegations to Canada, that’s another opportunity — or when presidents welcome delegations to Canada — to work with friendship groups.
As for enshrining this in the rules of the associations, it is up to each association to examine its rules, which can only be amended at the annual general meeting, if it wishes to make such a proposal. JIC has already encouraged the associations to work more closely together.
Senator Ringuette: I hope you’ll continue to encourage it. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the presentation.
Just to elaborate further, when I look at your table on page 11 of 59, I’m looking at your Main Estimates and your transportation. In 2018-19, it’s 38% and in 2022-23, it’s 34.5%. Then I look at your figure 2 on page 12, and your transportation just jumps out of that page at 65%.
I have a few comments. Maybe you can elaborate on that and clarify it for me. If I look, it’s great that the number of travel activities has diminished significantly because the Main Estimates are still the same amount, right? As well, there is more average number of travelling participants per travelling activity. Do you see that trend continuing because of the transportation costs? Is that a huge challenge going forward? What comments do you have on that? Perhaps you can clarify those numbers for me.
Mr. LeBlanc: I do think there probably is a trend toward fewer activities and smaller delegations overall. You’re right that the average per activity is up slightly. There are all kinds of factors that go into that. Sometimes you have people who cancel at the last minute, which in a situation of a minority government in the House of Commons is particularly common where whips may at the last minute cancel participants. That lends itself to some challenges there, or the requirement for pairing between members to allow them to get permission from their whip to travel.
We’ve noticed an overall increase of about 25% to 27% in what travel costs represent — the average cost of a trip to Strasbourg, say, versus where it was before the pandemic. That absolutely increases the amount of pressure that’s placed on associations.
In terms of the breakdown, I’m not sure I follow exactly which —
Senator Loffreda: Page 11.
Mr. LeBlanc: Page 11.
Senator Loffreda: I take your transportation and divide it by your Main Estimates. In 2018-19 you’re at 38%, and in 2022-23 you’re at 34.5%. The $1.4 million is not even half of the $4.3 million, right? It’s close to 35%. Then I just flip the page, and transportation is at 65% — that’s 2022-23. You must be adding in other groupings in that transportation — just to clarify. When I look at it, it just doesn’t make any sense.
Mr. LeBlanc: I think the distinction is whether you’re counting the contributions portion of the envelope. One of the reference points is the activity portion. There is about $1.5 million of the $4.3 million that goes to paying the international membership fees. The starting point for associations isn’t so much $4.3 million as $2.8 million. I think that’s probably the difference.
Senator Loffreda: It’s not on the Main Estimates.
Mr. LeBlanc: The total amount available in the envelope is $4.3 million, but $1.5 million of that goes to international memberships.
Senator Loffreda: It’s not clear. You look at that and say, “Hey, something doesn’t make sense.”
Mr. LeBlanc: It’s the activities portion.
[Translation]
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, can someone move the following motion:
That the report from the Joint Interparliamentary Council: Parliamentary Associations’ Activities and Expenditures for the fiscal year 2022-23 be tabled in the Senate.
Senator Moodie: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried.
I believe Jeremy and Marie-Eve will stay with us for the next two points.
[English]
Colleagues, the next item on the agenda relates to the budgetary surplus from the sixty-fifth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. You will recall that on June 15, 2023, we agreed to the request to use the surplus from the sixty-fifth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference as a credit toward the annual contribution for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, or CPA. However, the House of Commons did not agree to such reallocation, and since unanimous consensus is required from both houses, the surplus will not be reallocated. This is just to provide information.
Jeremy, do you have any comments to provide?
Mr. LeBlanc: You have explained it quite well. I am happy to answer questions, if there are any.
The Chair: Do you have any questions, colleagues, on this item? Thank you.
[Translation]
The next item on the agenda is clarification of the rules governing participation in association activities as non-members of official delegations.
You will recall that at our last meeting in June, we approved changes to the Senators’ Office Management Policy regarding the use of travel points for activities related to international and interparliamentary affairs.
Following the implementation of these changes, we realized that some clarification was required. That’s why you have a copy of a news release and letter in your folder that will be sent out to inform our colleagues and association presidents of the recent changes.
In short, it has been decided that senators would have to obtain prior approval from the association’s executive committee before attending association meetings as observers.
Moreover, we have clarified that a designated traveller may accompany the senator to association activities in Canada using the point system. We have also clarified that staff cannot travel using the point system to support a senator participating in an association activity.
Do you have any questions or comments? We wanted to clarify the rules so that everyone is clear before we send out the information. Do you have any questions for Jeremy or Marie-Eve?
Senator Forest: Could “the designated traveller” be a member of our staff?
The Chair: No. The word “designated” refers to a spouse.
Senator Forest: It’s strictly a spouse. Therefore, we cannot hire our spouse. Okay, that answers my question.
The Chair: Are there any further questions of clarification or comments? The news release and letters will be sent by the CIBA secretariat today.
Thank you very much, Jeremy and Marie-Eve.
The agenda includes the Information and Technology Management Roadmap. This item is for information only.
I’d like to ask Mr. Vatcher, Director of Information Services, to join us as a witness. As usual, the presentation will be followed by a question period.
Mr. Vatcher, you may start your presentation.
David Vatcher, Director, Information Services Directorate, Senate of Canada: Good morning, honourable senators.
In November 2020, I had the pleasure of presenting our road map for 2020-24 to CIBA. This morning, I would like to share with you a very positive update on the situation.
We have accomplished most of what was announced, and we are on track to complete the work on time. Despite the sharp rise in the cost of equipment, software and services, the Information Services Directorate — ISD — was able to complete its planned projects on schedule, and often at a lower cost than originally planned.
ISD is in a position to deliver on other initiatives and projects. You can see them in the document that was provided to you. The growth in effort and the number of cybersecurity tools in place has been felt by all, and we are continuing our efforts in this direction. The risk is still there, but we remain very vigilant.
We also took advantage of several opportunities to implement more good governance practices, including standing offers for equipment and equipment life-cycle maintenance practices. Our policies have been updated, as was, of course, our annual licensing and sole-source contract approval process.
ISD is aware of the impact of its annual budget on the Senate’s overall budget. We have sought and continue to seek to reduce our costs, and we analyze cost-saving measures whenever opportunities arise.
We recognize that our infrastructure is the backbone of the Senate’s activities and operations. We continue to invest in its maintenance. Our own Iris system has evolved thanks to the amendments module and to the addition of other modules, including those for external witnesses and virtual witnesses.
In recent years, ISD has successfully adapted to the global pandemic thanks to the total commitment of its members, of which I am very proud, and to the demonstration of great agility, enabling our institution to continue its very important work for the country.
We continue to adapt to the changing realities and challenges we face. Over the next few years, we will continue our efforts to improve services to senators and to the institution, and I look forward to presenting a new road map in the coming months for the years ahead.
Finally, I would like to thank the committee for its constant support, without which we would not have been able to carry out all this work.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Any questions or comments?
Mr. Vatcher, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent work being done and all the follow-up that you are providing to this committee. We have seen a tremendous improvement over the last few years under your leadership and with your team. The results have been excellent, so well done!
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you, David. Great report. Just a couple of clarifications.
In the five streams of activities, there are two that will be included in the next road map. My question is around the additional initiatives. I can surmise what some of them are about, others I can’t.
Are you able to provide a brief description so that we have a better handle on what those topics may include and what we’re trying to achieve?
Second, could we have kind of a forecast, a ballpark — if you will, a class C estimate — of what costs would be associated with those initiatives?
Mr. Vatcher: Of course. Thank you for your question, senator. I can provide additional information on our upcoming initiatives. We will provide class C estimates. As we move forward, we will bring more precision to these estimates and ensure at each step that this committee is aware of our initiatives and the required funding to accomplish them.
Senator Quinn: That’s great. Thank you very much for that, especially those descriptions, so we can get an early understanding of what some of those topics are.
Senator Moodie: This is a fantastic report and good work. You have a robust model, in my opinion. It has been helpful for all of us to understand what you’re doing, what you need and, as you go forward, how successful you’ve been.
My question is perhaps not directed to you but to the leadership. Is there any plan to expand this type of approach to other directorates, where we can follow more carefully our reporting on what people’s plans are and how they’re achieving them? This has been very helpful in terms of our tracking things in a succinct kind of way and understanding progress.
Pascale Legault, Chief Corporate Services Officer, Clerk of the Committee, Senate of Canada: Thank you very much for that question. In fact, each directorate provides an overview of the operational plan for the following year to the SEBS Committee, a subcommittee of CIBA. The information is provided in a package and directors are available to answer questions. It hasn’t come to this committee, but if that is the wish of CIBA, we’d be happy to bring that information up to the full committee.
Senator Moodie: I think that as needs are changing and as funding becomes tighter over time, we’ll have a better appreciation of what’s sitting where, what people’s goals are, how they’re achieving them and where there need to be changes or a new approach. It will become clearer to us. If it’s buried on a second level — I know they’re doing excellent work, but it has been very helpful for us to follow a costly part of our service that’s essential to how we operate. It might be something for us to consider.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, David, for your presentation and for the enormous amount of work that’s gone into developing the ISD systems here.
I have a very specific question to ask you about an occurrence —
The Chair: Senator Seidman, sorry to interrupt. I know where you’re going with this. Could I ask that we speak about this when we are in camera? We will keep it under “Other Matters.” It’s about cybersecurity?
Senator Seidman: Right. It’s about a specific incident.
Senator Plett: Why in camera?
The Chair: There is delicate information that could compromise some of the work that is being done. We have spoken with David about this. Unless you find it’s important that we speak about this in public, I think it’s important for the system’s integrity and the work that is being done to have that discussion in camera.
Senator Plett: We are getting emails about the issue. They are public. So why would we not want to talk — we are trying to be far too secretive as an organization. I believe this needs to be discussed.
Senator Seidman: I have a specific question. Then, if you want to take the details of the discussion that could have security risks in camera, I’m fine. I have a very specific question that I don’t think is a security risk. But if you determine it is, fine.
The question is the House of Commons sent out a notice to all MPs and staffers early Monday morning to notify them — it was public; it was in the media — that there was a distributed denial of service attack on our systems. It was cross-Parliament, so it affected the Senate as well. Indeed, senators’ and administrative offices noticed problems in the system that day. However, the Senate received no notification about this, senators’ offices, administrative offices.
Why did the House of Commons receive notification about a denial of service attack but we didn’t?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for your question, senator.
The Senate endures multiple attacks, and has endured multiple attacks, from different sources for many years. Now, in the past few months, the Senate has been the target of targeted attacks by pro-Russian entities.
Whenever such an attack is detected, as directed, I inform CIBA steering members of the start, any evolution and the end of the attack. That is what has been requested of me and that is what I do. I do it as quickly and as forthrightly as possible.
Senator Seidman: Let me be clear: You informed CIBA steering, but you don’t send out a notification to the Senate. Is that correct? There’s no notice that goes out to all Senate employees and offices that we are having trouble because there’s a denial of service attack on the system and we’re working on it? There’s no notice of this?
Mr. Vatcher: I have a more fulsome answer for you, which I hesitate to discuss in public.
Senator Seidman: As I said, if there’s a security issue, I’m happy to take it in camera. I just thought, since the House of Commons sent out a notice to all the employees, administration, staff and MPs on Monday morning, I didn’t think it would be a security risk for us to send out a similar notice to all Senate offices.
If this has to go in camera for some reason, so be it.
Senator Plett: I won’t belabour this either, chair.
I am quite disturbed, first of all, with the first part of Mr. Vatcher’s answer. It appears to me that CIBA steering knew about this and they decided not to send it out; that’s the answer I’m getting. I don’t know why that is an issue that needs to be discussed in camera.
I do absolutely agree with you, chair, and with Mr. Vatcher, that if we’re talking about security issues and how we’re going to handle them and things, that may be in camera.
This is about notification, when 338 MPs and all of their staff got a notice and we didn’t. It’s not about the breach. It’s about the process of us reporting the breach. That is what Senator Seidman is asking. I am troubled by the fact that we want to discuss that part of this issue in camera. Again, I will leave it and find out what kind of an answer we get later.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. We will discuss this in camera when we get to that part of the meeting.
Are there any other questions, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’d like a little more clarity on your first priority of the 2025-29 work plan, defining the modern Senate workplace. What are you going to do, paint our walls?
Mr. Vatcher: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I’m a lousy painter!
Senator Forest: Me, too.
Mr. Vatcher: We want to look at the technologies available to senators in their offices to ensure smooth operation. We know there are some older technologies, such as telephony, that we would like to replace. We are looking at new ways of doing things. If I were to open a new business tomorrow, what kind of telephony, what kind of unified communication would I put forward for my senior managers? In this case, I am talking about senators. That is our line of questioning. We want to establish a plan to look at where we are, and define a target and steps to get there.
Senator Forest: In French, the word “environnement” would be more accurate than “lieu.” Lieu is a physical place, while environnement includes the whole.
Mr. Vatcher: I understand. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? We are going to move on to the next item. Thank you very much, David. We are going to see you again in a few minutes.
[English]
The next item is an update on the public accounts for the fiscal year 2022-23. This item is for information only. Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, will join us as a witness.
[Translation]
Welcome, Mr. Lanctôt. Do you have a presentation? The floor is yours.
Pierre Lanctôt, Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Procurement Directorate, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I am going to provide you with the highlights of the Senate’s financial information that is part of the Public Accounts of Canada for the year ended March 31, 2023, which are usually tabled in Parliament in the fall. We are going to do it now.
The presentation, which is part of the meeting documentation, provides detailed information, but in the interest of being concise, I will focus my remarks on the elements that are most important.
The Senate’s financial results show that the Senate spent $13.7 million less during fiscal year 2022-23 than it received in voted authorities, which was $84.5 million. All unused Senate authorities remain in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and no surplus funds are carried forward to the next fiscal year. The main reason for this budget surplus is related to the lower average number of senators than budgeted and a lower level of activity than anticipated.
[English]
The senators and house officers generated a surplus of $8.6 million due to the actual number of senators during the fiscal year being lower than the number budgeted in the Main Estimates. Also, the budget utilization rate for the office budget was 79%, similar to last year.
The Senate committees spent $2.1 million less than budgeted, mainly due to a 40% utilization of the committees’ travel budget and witnesses participating in meetings remotely.
The International and Interparliamentary Affairs, or IIA, group spent $0.4 million less than budgeted, mainly due to funding not being utilized for the forty-seventh annual session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, as well as lower than anticipated expenses under the exchange and association programs.
As for the Senate Administration, a $2.4 million surplus was produced due to unplanned departures and vacancies. In addition, a surplus of $1.6 million is due to lower than anticipated legal, professional services, training expenses as well as unspent corporate budget for assets, toner, printing and other equipment.
A summary of the other information disclosed in the Public Accounts of Canada is presented on pages 9 and 10 of the report.
In conclusion, the Senate has continued to manage its spending in a prudent manner during the fiscal year 2022-23 and spent less than the funding it received as part of the Main Estimates.
This concludes my report. I will be pleased to answer your questions and receive your comments.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you, Pierre, for this very important report. We spent 16% less than the budget because of fewer senators. Compared to actual expenditures for the previous fiscal year, what does that look like?
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you for the question. We will be presenting the Senate’s financial statements comparing the current and previous year in the near future.
Senator Forest: Do the financial statements compare actual expenditures?
Mr. Lanctôt: They compare the actual expenditures in 2022-23 with the actual expenditures in 2021-22.
We will be presenting detailed information in the coming months, but I can tell you that our expenditures have increased over the previous year.
Senator Forest: I have a technical question. Do our rules allow us to have earmarked surpluses? For example, in my former life, I could have a surplus earmarked for the renewal of the computer fleet. Do our administrative rules allow this?
Mr. Lanctôt: Our funding does not allow us to keep the surplus money for subsequent years. Anything not used goes back to the government or the Treasury Board.
Senator Forest: Even a surplus earmarked for a particular function?
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes. We don’t have this concept of earmarked surplus.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Boyer: Thank you for this report.
I have a quick question about the special fees and services on the last page. Could you describe what those might be? That’s in appendix B.
Mr. Lanctôt: Yes. This is basically a list we have to provide as part of the public accounts; we have to provide a list of contracts that are given for professional services. That’s a summary of all the contracts that the Senate made with companies for professional services.
Senator Boyer: It would be clearer if it said that rather than “special fees.”
Mr. Lanctôt: Thank you. That’s actually the name that the public accounts is using, so we are actually using that name, but we don’t really have special services. There are already professional services.
Senator Boyer: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Pierre, for your presentation.
The next item is the quarterly report on intellectual property applications for commercial use. This item is also for information only.
The report is short and factual. Are there any questions or comments about this report?
Seeing none, we will move to the next item on the agenda.
Colleagues, are there any other questions that we need to address in public?
If not, we will suspend briefly so the clerk can make sure we are in camera. However, before I do that, I would like to remind everyone that CIBA meetings are most often held in public. Only when items deal with sensitive subjects such as wages, contracts and contract negotiations, labour relations and personnel matters or security matters, are they discussed in camera. The committee wants to be as transparent as possible about the important work it does.
Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12.16.1(b), we will be discussing two contracts during the in camera portion of this meeting: Korn Ferry and Njoyn.
[English]
Senator Quinn: I have a question under general matters. When materials are sent to our offices, my understanding is they only come to the senator in most cases. My comment is that it makes it more difficult to get organized. Why wouldn’t we have our executive assistants have access so they can help prepare us for these meetings? A lot of the materials come in a day or two before, and we’re all pretty busy. By the time we get it, you think, “Oh, geez. I have to get this material.”
I’m just wondering why we can’t allow our EAs to have access to these materials.
Ms. Legault: Thank you, senator, for that question. The decision from CIBA was that basically the entire bundle would be sent to the senator, even sensitive documents. One staff per office also receives the bundle, but if there are specific documents that are very sensitive in nature, such as litigation, labour relations or anything very specific like that, those documents are not included in the bundle going to your executive assistant.
That’s the way the CIBA secretariat proceeds. Every Tuesday morning, those documents are sent to your office. The full bundle is sent to your address privately, and your executive assistant receives the bundle with all documents except any sensitive document, as identified.
Senator Quinn: I have a follow-up question, if I may. Again, on the timing of documentation, I know that my colleagues are very busy; I get busy. If you know something is going to be on the agenda next week or the week after, I would urge for you to get the documentation to us sooner. We’ve all been on various boards, I’m sure, in our careers, and this is one of the few times where I have had documentation coming sort of late — really quite late — and it makes it more difficult. If there’s something we can do to get documentation earlier, that would be great.
Ms. Legault: The decision of CIBA was to provide documents the Tuesday in advance of the meeting. However, when documents are very lengthy, sometimes the steering committee of CIBA will accept that those documents be sent in advance. I think that was the case for the environmental report that was sent last week. It is done on an exceptional basis. The bundle is and has been for many years sent on the Tuesday morning.
Senator Quinn: Perhaps we can reflect a bit on the topic and see if there is something that can be done.
The Chair: I will say that we have. This has been a long-time practice; it has been in place for at least 10 years. We have spoken about it, and because of the sensitivity of the material, it stayed at 48 hours before the meeting.
I completely agree with you; you have to take the time to read bundles of 100-and-some pages, and two days is often not enough. I do agree with you.
We will look at it, but I am not very optimistic about changes, just so you know. We have tried.
Are there any other comments or questions for the “other business” part of our open session? Seeing none, we will continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)